USAF Reveals Timelines And Basing Plans For Adversary Support Contract

[MC5Wes]

Saw this article this morning.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21363/usaf-reveals-timelines-and-basing-plans-for-its-huge-adversary-support-contract

[pilot]

With the amount the DoD will be spending on ADAIR contracts (stated as $7.5 billion for a 10 year period), a whole lot of T-50As or Boeing TXs could be bought and used as red air.

Quote

The service reportedly expects to spend up to $7.5 billion between 2019 and 2029 on the complete ADAIR program, which could see contractors fly between 30,000 and 37,000 flight hours in total with an unspecified number of aircraft.

Let's assume 35,000 hours flown at the 10 year, $7.5 billion budget. That comes to ~$214k per flight hour total cost.

I don't know how much a TX or T-50A costs, but let's assume $30mil each. With 12 bases and an assumed 8 jets each, that's 96 airframes needed. For simplicity, lets say 100 jets are needed (I can't imagine these companies will have more than that at each base...probably less). Acquisition cost = $3.0 billion for a new fleet of 100 USAF owned ADAIR planes at an assumed $30m apiece, that have a lot more capability than the old L39, F5, and mirages that the ADAIR contractors have. That leaves a $4.5 billion 10 year operating budget for an estimated 35,000 hours, which comes to $128,500 per flight hour operating cost. If you want to raise the assumed acquisition cost to $40mil a copy for arguments sake, there's still $100,000 per flight hour left in the budget. At $60 mil a copy, $42,000 a flight hour remains for the budget.

And if the USAF bought them, we'd still have the airframes for another several decades, and not have to renew another more expensive contract a decade from now, as acquisition costs would be nil. While I'm not an expert AF bean counter, I don't see how the USAF justifies not buying aggressor jets outright with a budget like that, especially with the TX contract coming soon. It seems like it's a much wiser use of my tax dollars than paying a contractor billions of dollars to fly older, less capable aircraft, at over $214,000 per red air flight hour we'd be getting from the contracts. No idea if my assumptions are accurate. Feel free to blast away. 

[MooseAg03]

If they bought the jets they’d still have no pilots to fly them. The contractors utilize ex-military pilots which frees up the smaller number of AF guys to train and focus on their tactical proficiency.

If they did try to purchase jets, you’d be talking an even larger burden on UPT to grow the 11F ranks in order to fill cockpits. We’re already seeing the strain and cuts to UPT in order to boost production just to man the jets we already have.

[pilot]

In this proposed scenario, USAF buys/owns the fleet. An AF civilian job is created to fly them. Or a guard/reserve unit mans it. We had Dept of the Army Civilians (GS13s) instructing in apaches, kiowas, black hawks, and chinooks in army pilot training, mixed with active duty guys. We had mostly contractors instructing in our TH67s. Most of the DACs/contractors were retired army pilots. This scenario seems like a perfect opportunity for a similar GS13 gig, with a small AF contingent. Or, contractors could still fly the jets, which could still be owned by the AF.

 

The draken pilots have to come from somewhere during this shortage. It’s all guys retiring/leaving active duty who don’t want to do the airline gig. If there are dudes who want to do that job for a contractor, I would think the same guys would take a GS13 gig, with a potential bonus to make the numbers work for similar pay/benefits to what contractors are offering to do the same ADAIR job. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by FlyArmy

[AC&W]

It seems like it's a much wiser use of my tax dollars than paying a contractor...

The beans still left uncounted are the costs of hiring, training, and equipping a blue suiter, then compensating and providing healthcare for them and their dependent(s) over a lifetime if retirement eligible.

[Sprkt69]

On 6/8/2018 at 12:45 AM, FlyArmy said:

In this proposed scenario, USAF buys/owns the fleet. An AF civilian job is created to fly them. Or a guard/reserve unit mans it. We had Dept of the Army Civilians (GS13s) instructing in apaches, kiowas, black hawks, and chinooks in army pilot training, mixed with active duty guys. We had mostly contractors instructing in our TH67s. Most of the DACs/contractors were retired army pilots. This scenario seems like a perfect opportunity for a similar GS13 gig, with a small AF contingent. Or, contractors could still fly the jets, which could still be owned by the AF.

 

The draken pilots have to come from somewhere during this shortage. It’s all guys retiring/leaving active duty who don’t want to do the airline gig. If there are dudes who want to do that job for a contractor, I would think the same guys would take a GS13 gig, with a potential bonus to make the numbers work for similar pay/benefits to what contractors are offering to do the same ADAIR job. 

The ARC can’t even get guys to fly blue air as a GS-13. How will you find all these pilots to fly red? Also, the T-X needs a radar, jammers, etc to be adequate. 

[pilot]

15 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

The ARC can’t even get guys to fly blue air as a GS-13. How will you find all these pilots to fly red? Also, the T-X needs a radar, jammers, etc to be adequate. 

Guys keep saying ARC can't fill slots...how can Draken et al fill their slots? If ARC/USAF needs to add more bonuses or work rules to the specific job to compete, then so be it.  Or if that's too much trouble, make the pilot portion a contractor job. 

I just can't believe that we have to contract out so much of our military, especially the flying piece. We don't have the budget, manning, and equipment to train and fight, but from a different pot of money we can overpay companies to do what we can't. Think about that. We don't have the the strategic lift capability to fight the wars we've been entrenched in for 15+ years. When I was in the army, we paid a ton of money to a government-owned russian company to fly our helicopters in an antonov, alongside C17s and C5s, to training centers and to Iraq and Afghanistan.  We didn't have the C17/C5 ability to fly our own strat air missions. And red air seems, of all things to contract out, like something that can easily be kept in house. Instead, we are sending billions of dollars to for-profit contractors, who own the old outdated metal being used to train us. Is our inflexibility and incompetence in our acquisition process to blame? Is it the way those GS13 jobs are designed and the strings that are attached that make them unappealing? Why would someone choose to fly for Draken when they could have the same pay/QOL as a GSXX, if appropriate rules/bonuses existed, in newer ADAIR purpose built planes, or at least more modern fighters owned by the US. I assume the LM T-50A TX competitor could easily get a radar/mission equipment put in it. The FA50 version has it. I assume the boeing TX could as well. 

Regardless of what metal is used for adair/red air, I just can't see why it needs to be a contractor getting almost a billion a year, when a lot of that money could be used to buy our own equipment and pay for GS/contractor jobs in house.

[Termy]

“Guys keep saying ARC can't fill slots...how can Draken et al fill their slots? If ARC/USAF needs to add more bonuses or work rules to the specific job to compete, then so be it.  Or if that's too much trouble, make the pilot portion a contractor job.“

You haven’t thought this through so I’ll help. There are lots of folks (I am one) that aren’t going to give up an agr retirement to stay in arc as a gs-whatever and tr. the math doesn’t work. There are other guys at hyt or tig that have to retire even though they’d enjoy adair/red air/whatever. Other guys only want to do it part time. The list goes on. Until AFRC gets busy changing a lot of rules and qol issues, they aren’t going to hack any mission let alone additional missions. 

[pilot]

58 minutes ago, Termy said:

“Guys keep saying ARC can't fill slots...how can Draken et al fill their slots? If ARC/USAF needs to add more bonuses or work rules to the specific job to compete, then so be it.  Or if that's too much trouble, make the pilot portion a contractor job.“

You haven’t thought this through so I’ll help. There are lots of folks (I am one) that aren’t going to give up an agr retirement to stay in arc as a gs-whatever and tr. the math doesn’t work. There are other guys at hyt or tig that have to retire even though they’d enjoy adair/red air/whatever. Other guys only want to do it part time. The list goes on. Until AFRC gets busy changing a lot of rules and qol issues, they aren’t going to hack any mission let alone additional missions. 

Well, I have thought this through, but as I initially stated, I want to hear the reasons why my thinking is flawed, so thanks for trying to address it. However, here's what no one (incl you) has addressed. What requirement is there to keep the hypothetical GS-XX job tied to ARC and a requirement to be a TR? The GS-13s teaching army dudes at rucker are mostly retired army pilots, collecting active/federal retirements, and will get another at the end of their GS years. They get their W4/W5/O5 retirement, and do a GS13 job. They aren't in the guard or reserves. They show up, brief, fly 2 students, debrief, go home. The notion that this hypothetical job would have to be filled by an ART, who is also a TR, is where the problem lies with the understanding of my concept of how it should be. Perhaps in the AF, these jobs don't exist, and all GS-XX jobs are tied to ARC. But it doesn't have to be that way (and if it does, it shouldn't be, if that's the whole hangup, as you imply).

And that's my point. Hypothetical Johnny F16 driver doesn't want to do the airline gig. He wants to be home every night, keep wearing a bag, being around fighter bros, wanting to fly fast jets, but can't in the current AF climate. He retires as an O5 with 20 years at say 45, gets out, and is now a GS13 working 4-8 hours a day doing nothing but flying red air as a GS13, potentially with a bonus tied to it if necessary. He's now making close to airline FO money, plus retirement, no military BS, and is home every night, as a GS. And gets a GS retirement at the end. Tons of dudes would jump all over that. OR, if that doesn't/can't work, we have contractors who fill said billets, but they are flying AF-owned jets.

Is $214,000 per flight hour to rent ADAIR really the best, most efficient use of $7.5 billion over 10 years, with no equity in the aircraft to show for that spent money?

Edited June 10, 2018 by FlyArmy

[ViperStud]

3 hours ago, FlyArmy said:

Well, I have thought this through, but as I initially stated, I want to hear the reasons why my thinking is flawed, so thanks for trying to address it. However, here's what no one (incl you) has addressed. What requirement is there to keep the hypothetical GS-XX job tied to ARC and a requirement to be a TR? The GS-13s teaching army dudes at rucker are mostly retired army pilots, collecting active/federal retirements, and will get another at the end of their GS years. They get their W4/W5/O5 retirement, and do a GS13 job. They aren't in the guard or reserves. They show up, brief, fly 2 students, debrief, go home. The notion that this hypothetical job would have to be filled by an ART, who is also a TR, is where the problem lies with the understanding of my concept of how it should be. Perhaps in the AF, these jobs don't exist, and all GS-XX jobs are tied to ARC. But it doesn't have to be that way (and if it does, it shouldn't be, if that's the whole hangup, as you imply).

And that's my point. Hypothetical Johnny F16 driver doesn't want to do the airline gig. He wants to be home every night, keep wearing a bag, being around fighter bros, wanting to fly fast jets, but can't in the current AF climate. He retires as an O5 with 20 years at say 45, gets out, and is now a GS13 working 4-8 hours a day doing nothing but flying red air as a GS13, potentially with a bonus tied to it if necessary. He's now making close to airline FO money, plus retirement, no military BS, and is home every night, as a GS. And gets a GS retirement at the end. Tons of dudes would jump all over that. OR, if that doesn't/can't work, we have contractors who fill said billets, but they are flying AF-owned jets.

Is $214,000 per flight hour to rent ADAIR really the best, most efficient use of $7.5 billion over 10 years, with no equity in the aircraft to show for that spent money?

Blame leadership. The GS-13 positions you speak of ate Title 5 non-dual-status jobs. Every time this comes up, leadership shits on the idea because they have “no control” over a Title 5 guy. If he’s not also mil, what happens when he gets fat or acts like  civilian who doesn’t give a shit about drill weekends. What happens to a guy you have to pay overtime rather than just put him on orders?

BS reasons for sure, but that’s the rhetoric that gets pushed every time this comes up. 

[pilot]

Sounds like the SASC/congress should shit on the AF leadership that shits on this non dual status idea and make it fkng happen.  2k pilots short, getting worse over the next few years, with retention being the biggest unsolved issue. Seems like an easy fix to retain talent in key positions where talent is required.

[magnetfreezer]

Blame leadership. The GS-13 positions you speak of ate Title 5 non-dual-status jobs. Every time this comes up, leadership shits on the idea because they have “no control” over a Title 5 guy. If he’s not also mil, what happens when he gets fat or acts like  civilian who doesn’t give a shit about drill weekends. What happens to a guy you have to pay overtime rather than just put him on orders?
BS reasons for sure, but that’s the rhetoric that gets pushed every time this comes up. 

Wow. Is it a reaction to the idea of GS pilots specifically? Since the train of GS you can't take disciplinary actions against left the station decades ago. IIRC AFMC has GS test pilots and the CSO training T-1 pilots are also GS.

[Karl Hungus]

14 hours ago, FlyArmy said:

words

You’re missing the point.  It’s not about efficient use of taxpayer money.  It’s about feeding the beast that is the Defense Industrial Complex.  It’s not about winning wars, it’s a jobs program... too big to fail.

[snoopyeast]

Once you realize the DoD exists to spend the taxpayers money, EVERYTHING makes sense.

[F-16guy]

FlyArmy, you're doing the math wrong.  It's 30,000-37,000 hrs per year of flying with all the operating locations, not for 10 years.  And if you actually look at the draft solicitation its gets close to 40,000-45,000 hrs per year as your ramp up all the operating locations.  Even at 37,000 hrs flown per year, that's around $20,200 per flight hour.  And that's supersonic jets with modern radars, HOBs CATMs, HMD's, Datalink...etc.   There's no way the USAF could ever dream about getting close to that price.  Check out fedbizops, look up "CAF ADAIR" and read the solicitation.  Much more involved than what is being posted on this board.

Edited June 11, 2018 by F-16guy

[pilot]

That makes more sense. The original linked article said 30-37k hours in total, which didn’t seem like much of an ROI and seemed insanely overpriced. If that’s per year as you said (and after looking at the PWS looks like it is), that seems like a lot better deal. 

[Hacker]

20 hours ago, FlyArmy said:

Guys keep saying ARC can't fill slots...how can Draken et al fill their slots?

Money, quality of life, not living under DoD's thumb, etc.

[matmacwc]

16 hours ago, ViperStud said:

Blame leadership. The GS-13 positions you speak of ate Title 5 non-dual-status jobs. Every time this comes up, leadership shits on the idea because they have “no control” over a Title 5 guy.

You give up a lot as the pilot giving up the mil side, I don't know if I'd do it.

[icohftb]

50 minutes ago, matmacwc said:

You give up a lot as the pilot giving up the mil side, I don't know if I'd do it.

Could you elaborate? Dont GS contract pilots fly for other govt agencies?

[matmacwc]

2 hours ago, icohftb said:

Could you elaborate? Dont GS contract pilots fly for other govt agencies?

Off the top of my head?  I got sick while a GS and they were able to tie it to military service, therefore I could be put on orders to get paid and save the house.  Military pay is sometimes better than GS, and has a huge tax break.  I also think the GS system sucks in general, pay isn't that great, taxes are high, medical is just OK and the retirement (FERS) is terrible.  

[Prosuper]

23 hours ago, ViperStud said:

Blame leadership. The GS-13 positions you speak of ate Title 5 non-dual-status jobs. Every time this comes up, leadership shits on the idea because they have “no control” over a Title 5 guy. If he’s not also mil, what happens when he gets fat or acts like  civilian who doesn’t give a shit about drill weekends. What happens to a guy you have to pay overtime rather than just put him on orders?

BS reasons for sure, but that’s the rhetoric that gets pushed every time this comes up. 

We can't even fly on a FCF to get a decent debrief on what is happening on a jet so we can fix it.